Not according to this piece today on The New Republic site about the Dems platform battle over abortion language, and the efforts of Democrats for Life, a small organization (need it be said?) founded in 1999 with chapters in over 40 states. It is led by Kristen Day. The piece is called “Life Support? Inside the battle over abortion’s place in the Democratic platform.”:
[A]s it makes gains in more conservative districts, the Democratic Party is increasingly welcoming of pro-life candidates. Two of its most recent electoral successes-special election victories by Travis Childers in Mississippi and Don Cazayoux in Louisiana-were pro-life campaigns. And in the last few years, a flurry of Democratic-sponsored abortion reduction measures have been proposed in Congress, such as the “Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act” and the “Pregnant Women Support Act.”
But when it comes to the platform, pro-life Democrats face strong resistance from other corners of the party. “These kind of efforts are perennial,” says Ramona Oliver, communications director for Emily’s List. “They’re based on the assumption that Democrats’ position isn’t in the mainstream, and that’s just wrong. They’ve not succeeded in curtailing Democrats’ principles, and I don’t think they will in the future.”
According to the Jesuit ethicist John F. Kavanaugh, writing in the latest issue of America magazine, staying that course wouldn’t be too smart–and I’d agree. Kavanaugh writes an open letter to Obama asking him to throw a bone–with some meat on it–to pro-lifers who would like nothing better than to vote Democratic. He has three specific suggestions:
1. Support the Rev. Jim Wallis’s “abortion-reduction agenda,” with its economic support for pregnant women and greater access to adoption as part of the Democratic platform.
2. If you are interested in diversity and mutual respect, give a place at the Democratic convention for Democrats for Life to show you are unafraid of difference and debate.
3. Engage the arguments and evidence offered in opposition to second- and third-trimester abortions. You may find that the position of most American men and women is quite different from Naral’s. The earlier stages of embryonic and fetal development are more contested. But even your Republican opponent supports embryonic stem cell research. Ask him, and all the Catholics who will vote for him, how this fits into their professed commitments.
Perhaps you owe some courageous people like Douglas Kmiec a bit of reciprocation. Kmiec, a pro-life Catholic law professor who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, announced his support of you because of your approach to war, poverty and immigration. Because of this stand, he has been denied Communion at least once. Are you willing to risk excommunication from the church of Naral for a principled position on abortion?
Maybe they will call you that terrible name “flip-flopper.” But remember this: anyone who refuses to change a judgment in the face of irrefutable data is either a fool or a toady. And you, clearly, are neither. As I see you move more and more to the middle in matters of the economy and the war in Afghanistan, I wait. Will you move a bit to the middle on this matter of abortion?
A vociferous cadre in the Democratic Party has for too long wielded a dogmatic veto over any discussion of limiting abortions. With your commitment to reasoned, evidence-based and respectful discourse, are you able to challenge your party to welcome pro-life Catholics into its supposed big tent?
Food for thought for the weekend.
posted August 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Reducing unwanted pregnacies is the number one way of reducing abortions. Universal healthcare can help make this a reality.
It is the pragmatic approach. First reduce the problem, until it is not as rampant. Then have have the debate of whether it is ethical or not. Stop the abortions first.
The fastest way to do that is to get birth control used widely.
posted August 8, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Did I mention that it is Obama, not Mccain that has the best chance of reducing abortions through Universal Healthcare and birth control?
posted August 8, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Pro-life Republicans: Oxy-Moron?
Unless you believe that all pro-ilfe issues begins with conception and end at birth.
posted August 8, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The Republican Party has only given lip service to the pro-life platform. I have been a pro-life Democrate for years. Its just been hard for me to find a pro-live candidate in California. Even the Republicans have been pro-choice (by their voting records) and I have been at a lose as to who to vote for. So I choice to stay a Democrat and hope for the best. Hilary and Obama have at least stood up for reduction of abortions by education and options for women. The GOP just wants to force women to have babies and keave them to fend for themselves.
All live matters, from the womb to the grave.
posted August 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm
One appeal offered by an Obama presidency is that it might be open to hearing all sides. Abortion is an issue that mostly has the extremes simply screaming at each other while there are many who are in the middle. If the Democratic party were willing to compromise a little on this issue they would take away a Republican bludgeon used in election after election. The question is whether they have the courage to do so.
posted August 8, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I consider “pro-life” Republican an oxymoron, indeed. President Bush would consider himself “prolife” because he’s against stem cell research and abortion. So tell us, Mr. Bush, what about the death, penalty, torture, or pre-emptive, illegal wars that leave our service men and women dead, maimed or psychologically damaged? What about your veto of SCHIP? Do those poor kids only matter when their fetuses, Mr. Bush?
posted August 9, 2008 at 12:34 am
Down here deep in the heart of Texas, it’s been rumored for nearly 20 years that our current President impregnated a Midland waitress and paid her $1 million and a luxury home to have an abortion. Republican party operatives were shocked that he survived the issue and got elected governor.
Our first “family values” candidate divorced his first wife and married Nancy, and there is Republican support for abortion rights in the Deep South because Black women have disproportionately more abortions. So maybe I’m not entirely in tune with the pulse of the nation, but I can’t ascribe “pro-life” to the Republican party when its leaders are in name only.
Pro-life Democrats have an exceptionally difficult task–I know because I was a state Democratic delegate in 1984 and sponsored a mildly pro-life resolution, that got 2 (count ‘em 2) votes. The issue was whether the parents of a girl under 12 should be informed before she received an abortion, and I and the one other pro-life Democrat thought yes. We were voted down 274 to 2. So if you’re pro-life and run across a pro-life Democrat, be kind to them. They walk a lonely path indeed.
posted August 9, 2008 at 8:55 am
The Jim Wallis Abortion Reduction policy???? Why does Jim Wallis take credit for policy worked on and envisioned by others?
posted August 9, 2008 at 9:01 am
It would be nice to see the grip of NARAL and Emilys list loosened a bit. It is all about the money being dumped into the campaigns from these groups and their supporters and not about policy that is sound and just and for the common good.
posted August 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm
“It would be nice to see the grip of NARAL and Emilys list loosened a bit.”
Or maybe progressive believers need to be the conduit of conversation between people who have fought strongly for the civil rights of women and the pro-life movement. Demonizing Emily’s List and NARAL doesn’t really help in furthering the conversation when you consider what they’ve done to protect the rights of women and protect reproductive rights.
posted August 9, 2008 at 9:06 pm
David, thanks for the thoughtful post. As a longtime Democrat and pro-lifer, I’ve felt marginalized by my party for years. Here in Oregon, the Dem leadership strongly supports not only the pro-choice view on abortion, but also our state’s doctor-assisted suicide law. To me, that makes it impossible to contribute to the party or work on campaigns. (And no, I haven’t gone over to the Republicans. To me, the pro-life agenda rules out supporting warmongers and despoilers of the earth).
I think what Kavanagh suggests is a good first step: give pro-life Dems some respect, and tone down the vitriol against us.
Lots of famous Dems (Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, et al) were pro-life early in their careers but went pro-choice when they decided they needed the money of rich, liberal donors. Some famous Dems were always pro-life (for example, Cesar Chavez).
posted August 11, 2008 at 9:50 am
TJ, how is Jim Wallis taking credit for this??? You can ask why others are GIVING him credit, but he’s not taking the credit, even if he fully supports the idea. I don’t think Jim Wallis has ever personally taken credit for being its visionary.
posted August 31, 2008 at 1:24 am
Bill,
You mention you are a pro-life Dem in Oregon. Please e-mail us! We are others who believe the same as you. oregon@democratsforlife.org Or go to http://www.democratsforlife.org and follow the Oregon link.
posted October 22, 2008 at 6:33 pm
It’s often said that our vote is our voice. I can tell you after a full day of sorting through the arguments and casting my vote, that my voice is only a whisper in the wind. If the only choices are Democrats that are holding the party line to get elected, then how can they ever hear my voice calling for a pro-life, full-life option in government? I can either swallow my horror of this issue and vote Democrat (which I did), or I can be the one-issue voter and support a Republican who is working just as hard to get the votes from his/her party by supporting positions on everything else that I can’t agree with. How do we ever get the message to the Democratic Party that times are changing and we are here, open to supporting them, if they will truly speak for us! Nobody is available right now to speak for me, the evangelical, socially concerned, Christian Democrat committed to life. If I can’t cast my vote in a way that truly represents my beliefs, how is my voice to be heard?
posted October 22, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I’m in Oregon, too, and I know what you mean. I love this state and I love – for the most part – how we do things, but I know what you mean about being unable to fully invest yourself in the process because of this issue.
posted January 24, 2009 at 8:19 am
I ama registered nurse for many years and am very much aware that life begins at the moment of conception and it is morally wrong to assist with abortions . Just look at what happened in AFRICA in 1994. America should be prepared for similar consequences if we continue our immoral life.